Age of Sigmar gives you all of the rope in the world to hang yourself, but when two competent generals have a game, it's a fair tug-of-war.

Brilliant!

Actually its just dull dice rolling, Yahtzee is much much more fun, and certainly more tactical. When my kids were 5 they would have loved it, now they are 8 and 9, mid game they said they don't want to play this any more.

this is the most lame and boring miniature war game I have ever tried. And believe me I have tested a lot. I've played games with rules that fit on one a4 peace of paper that were quite fun. I have played games with no points values for models, that are balanced and challenging. Played a few really bad ones, some you've never heard of, and yet hands down AoS is the one that took the worst things in them all and combined it all in to one game, to replace a already bad game, because WFB, was never really good.

1) what is the point of it? when instead you can get more black guard, not like they are more expensive?

2) that's is just wasting a unit, again you can do same with say BG.

I have tried it. And like I said in a previous topic, the depth I found was a layer of stupid under another layer of stupid. Because its all down to who can field more elite models, preferably cannons and other forms of long range shooting. You hit and wound the same regardless who your targeting. And the most uber elites cost the same amount as chaff, so no real reason not to get more elites. Shooting is overpowered as you can shoot a unit that has engaged you in CC, and then attack them in CC each turn . WTF?

to me it looks like a project that someone started (had an awesome idea) but never finished, and GW just published it, with out testing.

as to the major rule changes, its nothing new, its all been done before, examplesThey copied the always hitting on same number form FoW, except in flames they did it right. No point system is in "With Fire and Sword", except they did it right, same as movement shooting, commanding a force exc. To be honest they have by far the best rule set I have seen.

Calisson, thx, I missed that part. To my defence I didn't try the dragon out.

The Mattler, i'm not going to bother discussing the majority of your last post because you change tact in order to suit your narrative as necessary.

I'll ask again, can you give me an example of a game of AoS in which "brains" or "intelligence" swung it? A specific example. You've talked a lot about it, tell me about it and give me an insight into your point of view.

Nevermind the examples, tell me about the games you've played. Which armies were used? Which units? What made the difference? Was shooting or magic a major factor? How many points worth of models (8th, but just out of interest) did your opponent bring and you bring? Genuinely curious.

Edit - I'll once again point out that I quite enjoy AoS, so i'm not being negative. I just want some clarification on the "skill" involved in what appears to be a fun and enjoyable game.....that doesn't require all that much skill.

Killerk wrote:anything can shoot anything. I can have my dragon sit in the corner and use his breath weapon on your unit of anything anywhere on the table, just in LoS.

DE warscroll compendium wrote:Noxious Breath:... pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6".

Sure, when you modify the rules, they may look absurd.

Actually, the relevant rule states:

Noxious Breath: In your shooting phase, a Black Dragon can belch forth a cloud of noxious gas. If it does so, pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6". For each roll of 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.

The difficulty becomes that there is no clarification of what the "that is within 6" refers to. As written, it seems to suggest that you roll one dice for each model in the unit that is within 6" of that unit (which is all of them, as the boundaries of the unit are obviously going to be less than 6" away from themselves). RAW, you can attack anywhere on the table with it. In fact, you don't even need the dragon to have LOS to the target, as all the rule says is "that is visible", without referring to who that visibility needs to apply to. As the player, I can see your lone goblin hero hiding down behind those bushes, thus the goblin is considered "visible" and can be targeted.

_________________"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

As written, it seems to suggest that you roll one dice for each model in the unit that is within 6" of that unit (which is all of them, as the boundaries of the unit are obviously going to be less than 6" away from themselves). RAW, you can attack anywhere on the table with it.

LOL!

No.

_________________I love me a bowl of numbers to crunch for breakfast. If you need anything theoryhammered, I gladly take requests.

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."- The stiff breeze

Yes. Sorry. RAW requires tight rule writing, which is where AoS is another epic fail (but that's off topic - my point was to point out that a RAW reading can support the original viewpoint put forward by KillerK). You can, of course, play RAI.

_________________"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."- The stiff breeze

Noxious Breath: In your shooting phase, a Black Dragon can belch forth a cloud of noxious gas. If it does so, pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6". For each roll of 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.

The difficulty becomes that there is no clarification of what the "that is within 6" refers to. As written, it seems to suggest that you roll one dice for each model in the unit that is within 6" of that unit (which is all of them, as the boundaries of the unit are obviously going to be less than 6" away from themselves). RAW, you can attack anywhere on the table with it. In fact, you don't even need the dragon to have LOS to the target, as all the rule says is "that is visible", without referring to who that visibility needs to apply to. As the player, I can see your lone goblin hero hiding down behind those bushes, thus the goblin is considered "visible" and can be targeted.

Well, I've always said, if you read a rule and it has two possible interpretations, one that makes perfect sense and one that's absurd, the assumption should always be that the intention was for it to be interpreted the way that makes sense. There used to be similar arguments that people brought up in previous editions, so this isn't a characteristic of AoS. I think it's pretty obvious that it's not meant to mean that a dragon has unlimited range for it's breath weapon, and I don't believe anyone could honestly say they aren't sure what was meant by the wording used.

_________________..Wishing everyone the very best, to the end of your days.

I disagree, Icon Hack. Rule should be written in such a way that there is only one way to read it. Interpretations have place in prose, not rules.

Noxious Breath: In your shooting phase, a Black Dragon can belch forth a cloud of noxious gas. If it does so, pick a target unit that is visible to it, and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6" of it. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.

Wordier? sure. Any alternate interpretations? Maybe, can you find one?All I did was add "it" which is already defined in the first sentence and at previously referred to at least once ("If it does so,")

Oh, I absolutely agree, Dalamar, there are ways that it could have been worded differently that would reduce the ability of someone being able to find some other meaning in there, and GW has always had rules like this that you can tell weren't written by a lawyer. My comment is only that in a case like this specific example, there's really no way that I'm going to believe that you aren't clear about what is meant. One interpretation makes sense, one doesn't (for a number of reasons).

_________________..Wishing everyone the very best, to the end of your days.

Noxious Breath: In your shooting phase, a Black Dragon can belch forth a cloud of noxious gas. If it does so, pick a target unit that is visible to it, and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6" of it. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound.

The "of it" doesn't stand there on my PDF. And it makes a whole lot of difference, doesn't it?

_________________I love me a bowl of numbers to crunch for breakfast. If you need anything theoryhammered, I gladly take requests.

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."- The stiff breeze

"of it" is my addition, as an example that the difference between writing bad, ambiguous rules and concise, clear ones is often as little as four letters.

The "of it" you added actually makes the line more confusing and ungrammatical than GW's confused and barely grammatical line. Is your "of it" intended refer to the dragon or the unit getting gassed?

The sentence GW wrote is read as the wounded models being within 6" of the Dragon but yours implies the wounded models being within 6"of the unit getting gassed, which is contrary to the sentence's logic and the logic of the game. Also the fact that the 40K flamer template/WFB breath attack template is somewhere around 6-7 inches in length and we all used to measure from the model using that for breath attacks is probably the missing link here.

"it" is already refered to once in the rules (I didn't add that part, it's original), and thus does not require further explanation. For the purpose of the rule the first part of the second sentence defines "it"

Flame template is 8.5" so the 6" reference as being similar to the template is meaningless. 2.5" is a significant area.

For the purpose of the rule the first part of the second sentence defines "it".

Not if we're both speaking English. "It" is a pronoun that usually refers to the noun object in the clause in which "it" is used, "it" is not necessarily always the Subject noun of the sentence. In the case of your suggestion the "of it" refers to the unit because of the comma after "If it does so". In the rule's case the "If it" refers to the dragon. Compare the Seraphon Noxious breath and the Black Dragon noxious breath for a clue here:

Quote:

Seraphon can exhale a cloud of noxious gas. If she does so, pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6".

Quote:

a Black Dragon can belch forth a cloud of noxious gas. If it does so, pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6".

Adding "of her" would make sense in Seraphon's sentence because it's use is unambiguous. Adding "of it" in the Black Dragon sentence creates ambiguity because of its poor grammar. "Of the model" is equally bad and of the dragon is redundant when you read it. Also try adding "of it" in the same way to the Seraphon rule and you should see what I mean (the sentence is actually clear and the "of it" clearly indicates the unit).

It's probably for this reason that both sentences make a compromise and leave out the "of her/it/the model" and rely on the reader's pragmatic competence to fill in the gaps. Now, this is a poor piece of writing by GW, but it's poor because A) it relies on the reader's knowledge of grammar (which IS increasingly a problem), and B) it relies on the writer's assumption that everyone will want to understand them (which has always been a problem, since the beginning of time).

I'm just saying because the suggestion of adding the "of it" is totally ungrammatical for the meaning you intend in that sentence. GW's line, however bad, is better than that. People in glass houses and all that.

Re: the template. The exact size wasn't my point. What I meant was that it was measured from the dragon's mouth, sorry if I was unclear.

I like you guys, I like this forum and the discussions I read here, but not only has this discussion become laughable, it has progressed to the point of being completely pointless. Again, I submit to you that there is no ambiguity here, because no reasonable person would ever argue that the rules state that a Dragon has unlimited range for their breath weapon.

You can find scores more examples of wording that can be manipulated to read differently than the obvious intention throughout this rule set, as well as any previous edition of WHFB, 40K, Mordheim ...etc. It is a characteristic of GW games that the rules do not read like a corporate legal contract, and that's generally a good thing. I've played many games over the years with rules like that and getting through the rules can be agonizing. I much prefer the combined use of plain English and common sense.

_________________..Wishing everyone the very best, to the end of your days.

I think the conversation has drilled into a micro point to illustrate a macro one. Yes, in this case you can probably (and I emphasize the word "probably" because I've seen way too many forum threads dedicated to ways to min/max the rules over the years) ascertain the intention and best reading of the rules (although I maintain that you can interpret it two ways, even if one seems mad).

However, the macro point is that the rules in Age of Sigmar are weaker than the overwhelming majority of other games out there, and that a lot of the "tightness" that a good rule set needs is lacking. The fact we can even quibble over something as basic as ranges and line of sight for a breath weapon is absurd - and it only gets worse as situations get more complex (most of the glaring issues have probably yet to be discovered, as the game is so new, but I have no doubt that they will be there, in abundance).

And remember, Age of Sigmar has been under development for a long time now - they've certainly know that 9th edition was in the works and they ran through the whole of the End Times books prior to it in preparation. So really the best they can do is generate a flimsy, weakly written, 4 page rule set that allows such issues as this to arise? Micro - absolutely, you would have to be a total a**hole to insist that dragon breath has no range and can be used against people that the dragon can't see. But macro? it's symptomatic of a much larger problem, and somewhere between absurd and outrageous that this kind of poor writing permeates a rule set that destroyed the entire Warhammer world and which the company had many months, if not years, to write.

But this all veers wildly off topic, which is Daeron's very interesting response to AoS, for which I apologize. I didn't mean for the thread to become side-tracked here, my original post was merely a short response to an earlier point mentioned and then rebutted in this thread.

_________________"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Technically the breath can be targeted anywhere, but the effect will only hit models within 6". There might, possibly, be a future scenario in which it is possible to combine units so that there is a greater range to the breath weapon, or a situation whereby a unit must react if shot at like the old Warp Lightning Cannon trick.

Right, but within 6" of what? The issue arises because the rule doesn't specify whether it's the dragon or the unit itself, thanks to poor grammatical choices. It's obviously intended to be the former, but that still makes it RAI. And if the game designers can't get something as simple as rules about range written clearly, it doesn't bode well for more complex rule issues.

_________________"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

I took the liberty to rename the topic to the noxious breath discussion it contains.Let me ask you, though, if you'd dare to bring this alternative interpretation of the rule to a tournament and make your strategy depend on it? Or even in a friendly game with a buddy. Do you feel your friend will be appreciative of such a move?

But since this topic actually manages to be taken seriously, aside from the obvious English interpretation, here's another clear cut logic that cancels the alternative interpretation.

"In your shooting phase, Seraphon can exhale a cloud of noxious gas. If she does so, pick a target unit that is visible and roll one dice for each model in that unit that is within 6". For each roll of 6, that unit suffers a mortal wound."

The filter on models within 6" makes no sense with respect to its own unit. The entire unit is selected, hence all models are already eligible. Imagine that a single model would manage to be removed more than 6" from the remainder of its unit, then still this filter would make no sense with respect to the unit as the model is already selected.

-> The filter only makes sense when applying the distance to an exterior point of reference. The only one given is the dragon.

_________________I love me a bowl of numbers to crunch for breakfast. If you need anything theoryhammered, I gladly take requests.

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."- The stiff breeze

Let me ask you, though, if you'd dare to bring this alternative interpretation of the rule to a tournament and make your strategy depend on it? Or even in a friendly game with a buddy. Do you feel your friend will be appreciative of such a move?

Absolutely not. I'm not a WAAC player. My point is not to say that "I" would do so, but to emphasize that "others" might, given the number of people I've seen posting threads over the years on topics, such as how to make a unit of Empire fast cavalry move from one end of the board to the other through a twisting of the reform rules. There are that kind of players out there, and games such as AoS need to keep their rules tight to avoid that kind of exploitation.

Quote:

The filter on models within 6" makes no sense with respect to its own unit. The entire unit is selected, hence all models are already eligible. Imagine that a single model would manage to be removed more than 6" from the remainder of its unit, then still this filter would make no sense with respect to the unit as the model is already selected.

-> The filter only makes sense when applying the distance to an exterior point of reference. The only one given is the dragon.

Sorry, but no. You are applying two different meanings of the word "sense", one of which has no relevance. So, does it make sense from a grammatical and sentence construction point of view for the origin of the 6" to refer to the unit itself rather than the dragon? Absolutely. Does it seem to make sense from a "with other contextual factors considered what they were probably aiming for when they wrote the sentence" point of view for the origin of the 6" to be the unit itself rather than the dragon? Well, no. But rules are rules regardless of their "common sense" value. So, yes, I agree, the logical interpretation is that it must be the dragon. But the rules as written indicate that it could be either. And games should always aspire to have less of RAI and more of RAW as the dominant rules basing. And the fact I can even make this argument, speaks badly of the ruleset.

_________________"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Wait, so one explanation uses every word in a (rather) clear and logical manner, leading to a very logical use of the ability, and the other interpretation chooses to make one part "weird and obsolete", game-breaking in its use... but still needs to be taken seriously? Why?

This isn't RAW. This is looking for trouble. No game has rules with enough protection built-in to avoid such intentional misinterpretation. It's not even hard to prove.

_________________I love me a bowl of numbers to crunch for breakfast. If you need anything theoryhammered, I gladly take requests.

"I move unseen. I hide in light and shadow. I move faster than a bird. No plate of armour ever stopped me. I strike recruits and veterans with equal ease. And all shiver at my coldest of whispers."- The stiff breeze

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum